"I outed him as a straight person," Josephs said during a fund-raiser at the Black Sheep Pub & Restaurant, as some in the audience gasped or laughed, "and now he goes around telling people, quote, 'I swing both ways.' That's quite a respectful way to talk about sexuality. This guy's a gem."

I don't see what's particularly disrespectful about his way of talking about sexuality. Colloquial, definitely. But disrespectful?

Several straight media sources were touting this earlier this week as progress on LGBT issues. Here's the title TPM ran with the story:

"We've hit a new high point when candidates are accused of pretending to be gay to win a seat," said Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News and a pioneering civil rights advocate.

"I've been doing this for 40 years, and I never have heard of this kind of charge in any race in the nation," he said. "I take that as flattery. It shows how far we've come."

Did he pretend to be gay? I thought "swing both ways" meant bisexual, not gay. Segal modified his quote for The Advocate, the first media source I saw that saw this as a bisexual issue, not a gay and lesbian issue (this is why we still need community media):

"This is probably the only race in America where a candidate who is claiming to be a member of the LGBT community is actually being questioned by members of the LGBT community and other candidates if he is," said Segal.

Most likely because he's bi instead of gay.

Anyway, this isn't progress. This is the old and tired idea that bisexual people don't exist, that everyone (especially men) are either gay or straight or lying, and that bisexuals can't be trusted because they're either dishonest or frivolous.

Bisexual people do exist. If you're looking for proof of male bisexuality, you can enlighten yourself in the privacy of your own home (link NSFW). As always, I don't see any reason for people's sexuality not to be taken at face value if they don't give any indications otherwise. Considering it's impossible to disprove someone's bisexuality, you've got to wonder why a candidate would make such an accusation.

Phillips says that Kravitz said he was gay to her and then she spotted him with a woman so now he's saying he's bi. He says that he's never talked to her about his sexuality. It's impossible to know what happened in that private conversation. But it is telling that he knows how to discuss biphobia like a real-live bisexual:

"As an openly bisexual man, I was subjected to some horrific things you would never ask a straight or gay person," he said. "People asked me, 'How many sexual partners do you have? Who do you prefer to have sex with more?' Literally. How does someone prove they are bisexual?"

A candidate's sexuality shouldn't be of any importance, but it is. Phillips wouldn't have brought this up if she didn't think she could score points with this. But I'm guessing the system probably works and voters won't care.

Every article about this has been toting Phillips's voting record on LGBT issues, but that doesn't mean that what she says is going to please everyone in the LGBT community (or that she has to). She's probably great on LGBT legislation, but she put these statements on the table and they should be discussed. The discussion here isn't about whether she should win or lose or whether she's a good person or a bad person or about whether Kravitz is really bi or not. Those are all important topics in their own contexts, I'm sure, but what does it say about all of us when we're at a place, in 2010, when a politician says they're bisexual and their opponent calls them a liar because she saw him with a woman?

Also bothersome is that outing someone as straight, as if there's an advantage to being queer in an election even in a very liberal district, is teetering really close to "post-gay" rhetoric that implies that homophobia is behind us and everyone actually wants to help those queers get ahead of hard-working straight people because they get everything so goddamn easy. But I don't live in that district, so I wouldn't know.

By way of context: this is a downtown, highly liberal district (it includes my office) in which every two years like clockwork, some young local progressive challenges Rep. Josephs in a primary -- more because of the desire of young ambitious activists to serve in Harrisburg than any particular fault of Josephs'. Thus far, every time the challenger has fallen short, though coming as close as 237 votes in 2006.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Well done Alex. When I first saw this story I was irritated by that editor ignoring bi issues and the fact that the candidate said that he was bi.
At this point I hope that the woman doesn't win. I'm tired of bi invisibility even in what is supposed top be our community.

Contrary to reports - this isn't the first time a similar issue has come up in a primary for Babette's seat. Usually around the Liberty City endorsement process.

I really know nothing about this gentleman, but one previous opponent was being touted as bi - but - not out - so don't bring that up - but count it in their favor. Sorry - maybe 25 years ago - not in the last 10.

And another had a coming out at the interview, where she clumsily informed people at the endorsement meeting out of the blue that she was bi due to some attractions earlier in college. She hadn't had any connections to the community, issues or any organizations and many saw it as an embarrassing ploy. Even if true - not the best way to say you understand the community's issues and have a connection to it. It did not help her.

So - Babette has had some history on this particular circumstance. She has been great on lgbt issues - when the hate crimes bill was being passed - she pretty much let folks use her office as a base at the State House.

I'd love to see someone running for office who has deep connections to the community & doesn't come out during the endorsment process. It's really odd that Philly has never had an lgbt person on City Council for example. Ever.

'she spotted him with a woman'
does that mean he was having sex with her?
does something like that mean I'm not a lesbian because I can be spotted with male friends?
does the hello hugs I get from men mean I'm bi?
I have never had a sexual relationship with a man, but was wondering if casual contact with them would make me bi?

I totally agree with all of these comments: biphobia, or whatever you want to call it, remains a relatively unacknowledged sentiment that runs against what LGBT SHOULD stand for. Sadly, those letters often come out looking like WASP, rather than a group of colorful, diverse communities... Yes, I meant plural, not singular.

I think people are afraid of losing their "Gay" or "straight" status if they admit to an attraction to the same or opposite sex as the case may be. Personally, I believe Bi-sexuality is the norm for a majority of people but most are too afraid to lose a label they feel more comfortable with.

Attraction knows no gender. I consider myself lesbian, but I have been attracted to some guys I've know. To me attractiveness goes far beyond just what someone's sex or gender is.